N/A
N/A
1. Field of the Invention
This invention generally relates to the field of multi-receptacle support devices. More specifically, this invention provides a device with improved structure and functionality for retaining a multitude of refuse cans or other receptacle containers. This invention also offers further improvement over other rotatable multi-receptacle support devices in that the receptacle support structure can be locked in place to prevent rotation when not desired by the user. These type of multi-receptacle support devices are most often employed by users desiring 1) to segregate refuse or other materials, 2) to facilitate storage and collection of refuse or other materials, 3) to prevent animal nuisances with refuse, and 4) to increase storage capacity of refuse or other materials.
2. Description of Related Art
Various forms of refuse container support systems are known in the art. However, only one device is presently known in the art that is directed to a rotatable, multi-container system. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,015 issued Dec. 3, 1996 to Baker, Baker discloses a rotating, mult-receptacle support stand comprising an upright central support post, anchored on one end to the ground as part of a concrete footing, and a series of refuse receptacle support trays quadratically placed around the central support post. Each refuse receptacle support tray is connected to a support member that is attached on one end to the support tray and on the other end to a collar attached to the top end of the central support post. Baker also discloses a bearing element located just below the collar attached to the top end of the central support post, which allows the receptacle tray, arms and collar to freely rotate around the central support post.
Although the Baker device discloses a useful multi-receptacle support system, that device has several limitations which are overcome by the improved device disclosed herein. First, Baker""s receptacle support trays are direct to a means for supporting the bottom of the receptacle. In many instances, support only of the bottom of the receptacle may be inadequate for certain users. Each of the bottom support trays disclosed by Baker employs a circular sheet of metal or wire grid containing an annular raised rim, which must be of a diameter larger than the diameter of the user""s circular receptacle container. Although Baker does not state the vertical dimension of this annular rim, Baker""s drawings indicate that is relatively shallow. Herein lies a major deficiency of the Baker design. First, a shallow annular rim does not provide adequate lateral containment of the receptacles placed on the tray. Baker""s design clearly does not anticipate the necessity and extent of lateral containment and therefore presents a device of very limited utility in many applications. Second, Baker""s device also does not effectively work in situations where refuse collectors, often in hurry, toss the receptacles back into the support system. Under these circumstances, Baker""s device is also not effective in that the receptacles often bounce off of the shallow support tray and scatter on the ground around the device.
A further limitation of the Baker device lies in the design of the rotating collar about the central support post. Baker appears to have designed his rotating collar with the intent that free-rotation is the preferred embodiment. However, as a practical matter, free-rotation is in fact not a preferred embodiment, especially in applications involving refuse collection. In this application, for example, the movement of receptacles on to and off of the support trays by refuse collectors typically imparts an undesired rotational movement of the support system around the support post, which that frustrates the ability of refuse collectors to effectively replace the receptacles back on to the support tray. This often results in the device owner having to himself stop and carefully replace the receptacles back on to the support trays. In addition, owners of the Baker systems often come home to find children at play hanging on the support trays and spinning around the central post. Since Baker does not disclose a means for preventing free rotation, the owners are often required to place objects, unmovable by children, within the area around the support trays to block rotation and deter potentially dangerous playing with the system. Moreover, a latchable systems would be preferred by users employing this system to feed livestock since the animals could feed them selves without have their interaction impart unwanted rotation.
A still further limitation of the Baker device lies in the limited strength and stability of the receptacle support tray system when under heavy or unbalanced receptacle loads. Because Baker""s support trays are only connected to the central support post by a single armature, when rotated under heavy or unbalanced receptacle loads, a binding action can occur on the collar and bearing which can inhibit movement and stability of the system. The inventor""s present a framework system around the receptacles which greatly improves the stability of the system and allows better distribution of forces around the structure.
The improved multi-receptacle containment device presented herein overcomes the mechanical and practical inefficiencies in the prior art by providing a more effective receptacle retainer means.
A further improvement of the device presented herein is the ability to prevent free rotation of the receptacle containment systems to make it safer and more effective in applications where rotation of the system under action of the user is not desired.
A further improvement of the device present herein is the ability to accommodate a larger variety of receptacle types, dimensions and designs to provide users with more applications in which a multi-receptacle system could be employed.
A still further objective of the device presented herein is to provide an improved multi-receptacle support device that is easy to construct and assemble, while providing all of the benefits disclosed herein.
A still further objective of the device presented herein is to provide and improved receptacle support structure which provided better distribution of weight forces across the frame structure to accommodate receptacles of different weights or partially empty retainers. Such a system will also last longer in harsh environments, for example, where refuse collectors toss empty receptacles into the device rather than carefully place them there.